Does John Kerry really take both sides of every issue? Here are both sides of that issue: An article that says he does and an article that says he doesn't. Take your pick.

Here's the kind of thing that amazes me. I guess it shouldn't but it does. It's the way a seemingly-intelligent human being — in this case, Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson — can leap from one position to the opposite in the blink of an eye. This is from today's episode of Crossfire on CNN, and I cut 'n' pasted this right out of the transcript. Carlson was talking about some allegations that are circling that John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airliners a few months before 9/11 because he had been tipped that terrorists had a plan to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Here's the relevant passage…

Strictly speaking, this charge is false. Ashcroft did stop flying commercial, but it was because of domestic, not terrorist threats. But it's worse than that. It is the ugliest possible conspiracy theory and it's a destructive one, too. If you don't like Ashcroft's policy, attack them, critique them. But don't accuse him or any other American of knowing about 9/11 in advance. It's just too much.

Okay, I agree with that. I don't care much for Mr. Ashcroft but that doesn't mean the charge is true. I certainly haven't heard of any evidence that would justify the charge. So good for Carlson. But then, less than 45 seconds later, he says…

…I knew a lot of perfectly decent smart people who actually became mentally ill thanks to Bill Clinton. And you're seeing the exact process happening on the other side…Paul Krugman has become so obsessed with Bush, he actually accused him of causing anti-Semitism in Malaysia. After that column, I have to say…As much as I thought he was smart once upon a time, he's gone crazy.

So much for civility in our political discourse.

George W. Bush is soon to sit down with the chairpersons of the 9/11 commission to answer questions about what occurred on that horrible day. He has stated that he will only grant them one hour of questioning and he has been criticized for this. So will he allow the questioning to go for more than an hour? Well, let's ask his press secretary and find out.

It's not finished yet but comic book fan/historian Bob Hughes is putting together a wonderful resource — a webpage that tracks the history of DC Comics. Here's what he has up so far and I'll be sending him a batch of additions and corrections (not many corrections so far). And while you're over there, you might want to check out the pages where Bob identifies the Golden and Silver Age artists who drew Superman and Batman.

I think cole slaw is one of the three-or-so most disgusting things on this planet. I have seen people eat it. I have seen them claim to enjoy it. I have never figured out who they think they're kidding or why they want to mislead me into believing the stuff is edible. If and when I become president, there will be a Constitutional Amendment requiring an immediate death penalty for the making of cole slaw.

With that in mind, this is the most horrifying thing I have seen to date on the Internet. If you're the sensitive type, don't click on it.

If you've delayed ordering the first volume of The Complete Peanuts from Fantagraphics, do so now. Shipping has been delayed (they're now saying March 31) so they've extended the offer for Free Shipping until March 15. We like Free Shipping. Free Shipping is a good thing. Go here and get Free Shipping. And thank Brandon Power for pointing out to me about the Free Shipping.

Here's an odd political thought. One of the big reasons George W. Bush is dropping in most polls (losing 52-44 in the current Gallup/CNN) is that we seem to have what they call a "jobless recovery." Jobs are simply not being created to keep up with the expanding demand for them. Here are some rough numbers as I understand them.

The pool of new people seeking employment is said to expand at the rate of about 150,000 per month. Now, there seems to be some disagreement over how much the job market has to expand to accommodate all those new potential workers. There's a thing called a "mobility factor" which means that you need more than 150,000 jobs created to serve 150,000 people. This is because the jobs do not always appear where the workers are. An availability of new minimum wage jobs in Maine doesn't help the people looking for work in California. Some say we need at least 200,000 new jobs a month just to keep pace and of course, we need a lot more than that if we're going to reduce unemployment. Whatever the number, we're falling far short of it.

Every month, the administration predicts more jobs will be created and every month, their projections are spectacularly wrong. In February, for example, they forecast 130,000 and the total growth was only 21,000. What's worse is that all 21,000 were in the public sector, meaning only that the government hired more people. Conservatives are supposed to hate the whole notion of more folks on Uncle Sam's payroll, and the Bush tax cuts were supposed to spur private industry to create more jobs.

Clearly, that's not happening. Today in Dallas, Bush bragged, "We've added more than 350,000 new jobs over the last six months. The tax relief we passed is working." 350,000 in six months is pretty far short of what the country needs just to stay even, and even that number will probably, like most recent reports, be revised downward. The announced January gain of 112,000, for instance, has recently been restated as 97,000. So clearly, the principle that you cut taxes for the wealthy so they'll create more jobs for the rest of us is becoming increasingly hard to argue.

Now, here's where we come to my weird thought of the day…

Let's say you run a big company. Let's say you're part of the top management of Walmart. Well, you have to love the Bush administration. You're pocketing $20 billion per month and even if you pay honestly, you're paying one of the lowest corporate tax rates in American history, to say nothing of all the other perks you derive from a business-friendly government. Walmart has already donated a million bucks to G.O.P. candidates and its top execs are making personal donations, as well. So why not, around October of this year, start hiring like crazy?

Walmart employs 1.2 million Americans. An average employee makes around $1,000 per month. If they suddenly decided to add 100,000 employees in October, kept them through the Christmas rush and fired them all January 1, it would cost around $300 million. (These are obviously very rough numbers. All I'm presenting here is the principle.) Now, they may not need 100,000 more workers now but through Christmas, they'll need some increase, and every company has short-term work that can be done, so it's not like that $300 million wouldn't give them some useful service. They could even cut back on the hours of some current workers, keeping them technically employed but passing some of their work on to others who would now also be counted as employed.

What I'm getting at is that Walmart could easily hype the employment numbers just before the election. It might cost them some bucks but it also might cost them less than John Kerry as president. If Target, Sears, K-Mart and a few dozen others all made a point of putting on extra workers in October, they could enable the Bush administration to say, "The jobs are coming back," and there would be no real way to prove they were only temporary.

This would be more than a matter of keeping Bush in office. A lot of wealthy folks in this country have a lot riding on the proposition that slashing taxes for the rich will ultimately benefit all. The premise has always been arguable and G.W.B. is certainly making it harder to defend. If a backlash against that supposition merely raised the maximum corporate tax rate from 35% to, say, 38%…well, someone else will have to do the math but it seems to me that would cost Walmart a lot more than hiring some extra workers for a few months.

Yesterday morning, my friend Carolyn and I walked a few blocks from my house to watch some of the L.A. Marathon. Our vantage point was around mile 17 of the 26 mile competition, so the runners we cheered on were getting weary but were, for the most part, still pretty strong. They seemed appreciative of the huge crowds that turned out to line the streets, and even more appreciative of the volunteers handing out oranges and bottles of water.

It was a colorful, if sweaty crowd. There were a couple of folks in clown make-up and one wearing one of those full-face masks that Mexican wrestlers favor. There was one runner pushing a stroller containing an infant jogger-of-tomorrow. My unscientific survey of those who passed us showed a pretty hefty percentage of New Balance shoes, my footwear of choice. I did not spot animation expert Amid Amidi who, I see from his weblog, was somewhere among the 24,000 starters…but he may have passed us while I was studying running shoes. (Amid, you and all those who ran have my respect. I could barely make it down to watch you.)

The whole mood was very festive. There was a rock band playing near where we were, and they were good even if every third song was "Roll Over, Beethoven." Some spectators were dancing right in front of the bandstand and every so often, a runner would detour out of the lane to join them in a few steps. A lot of onlookers held up signs that read, "Go, [name of some runner]." On the way down, I spotted a lady who was walking away from the site with one that said, "Go, Donny!" Donny, apparently, had already passed so her work was done. A couple on their way to the route stopped her and apparently said, "Hey, we're going down to cheer on someone named Donny. Could we have your sign?" And she gladly handed it over. I don't know why but I liked that. I liked the whole brief trip to watch the runners. Especially because I wasn't one.

As far as I know, it went utterly unmentioned in the press that Erin Fleming, one-time companion of the great Groucho, took her own life on April 15 or 17 (accounts vary) of 2003. At least, I only recently learned of it.

There was a time when this controversial lady was all over the newspapers, especially during a nasty battle over various portions of his wealth which he had either given her or to which she had helped herself. Fleming was an ever-aspiring actress who arrived in Groucho's life after a long string of "secretaries" had fled in horror at the way they felt they were treated.

The referral came from a writer-producer named Jerry Davis, a very nice man whom she pestered for acting jobs (or just any job) when he was producing the Odd Couple TV show. Erin was creating problems for Jerry, suggesting they could become closer friends in a way that Jerry, who was happily wed, did not appreciate. When his pal Groucho asked if Jerry could recommend an assistant, Davis — to his later regret — connected him with Erin.

Unlike the many before her, Erin did not quickly flee Groucho's employ. She went from running errands to running his life, convincing him that she should manage his affairs and business matters. She also arranged to get him more into the public eye, dragging him to parties and hosting half of Hollywood in Groucho's Trousdale mansion. Among those who witnessed this period of Groucho's life, there is still controversy: Most admit that she did him some good, promoting his stardom and making large portions of his life happy and active. But her motives were often questioned by those who felt she was less interested in aiding Groucho than in promoting some sort of career for herself.

Meeting Woody Allen (via Groucho) got her a bit part in his film, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask, and when Groucho did a guest shot on Bill Cosby's variety show in 1973, a condition of his appearance was that Erin would be billed as a guest star. The consensus seems to be that she ultimately did more harm than good and in my own, admittedly brief encounters with her, that's the impression I got. At the same time, I suspect Groucho, in his more lucid moments, did not feel that way…and his vote certainly counted for something. Her worst deeds may have been that she did everything in her power to alienate him from his children, and at some point became convinced that for all the years she invested in his life, she was "owed" everything she could get out of him.

The legal wars started even before Groucho died when his son Arthur finally stepped in and got a court order to separate her from Groucho's business affairs. The battle turned even uglier after Groucho passed away, as various courts heard testimony of Erin abusing Groucho and his servants and squandering his money. She lost big in court, vowed to appeal, then seems to have descended further into some sort of true dementia. A few Marx Brothers fans received letters from her in which she announced, with no basis in fact, that she had been legally adopted by Bob Guccione, the publisher of Penthouse magazine.

In the letters, she implied that she would use her new Daddy's money and connections to punish all who had wronged her and taken away her rightful share of Groucho. Then she more or less disappeared, though there were reports that she was homeless and others that she was routinely arrested on firearms charges. In January of 2003, she reportedly moved into a senior retirement home in Hollywood and it was there, three months later, that she shot herself.

Dick Cavett, writing about her relationship with Groucho, once commented that in a larger sense than the trial, the jury would be out forever; that she brought so many good moments to the comedian's last years that it was wrong to focus on the negatives. Maybe…but there sure were too many of them.

Jim Amash, who inks for Archie Comics and conducts splendid interviews for Alter Ego magazine, has written a short but sweet piece on the late Rudy LaPick. It's over here on the Archie website.

I think I also forgot to mention that the current issue of Alter Ego is devoted in large part to the late, great Mike Sekowsky, a wonderful artist who received too much of his acclaim after he left us. The issue contains an interview with Mike's widow, some history on his career, and a round table discussion about him between myself, Dave Stevens, Scott Shaw! and Floyd Norman. If you are interested in Mike, you must pick up this issue. And if you're interested in comics, you're already a subscriber.

Shelly Goldstein (chanteuse extraordinaire) just e-mailed to tell me that The Front just came out on DVD, and that it would be a dandy thing for me to put up this Amazon link so you can purchase it online. This is not why I brought up the movie but it's a fine idea. And while I'm at it, I'll tell a story I heard once about Zero Mostel and blacklisting. This was during the period when Mostel could not get hired for television or movies. One night, he's having a drink in some bar with an actor friend and the actor says, "I'm so miserable. I don't understand why I'm not working." Mostel replies, "Hey, I'm not working, either." And the actor friend answers him, "I know why you're not working. You're blacklisted. Why the hell am I not working?" That exchange is not in the movie but it should have been.

For no better reason than that it was on a movie channel I receive, I found myself re-watching The Front, the 1976 movie about blacklisting written by Walter Bernstein and directed by Martin Ritt. Both gents actually were blacklisted, as were several cast members including Zero Mostel and Herschel Bernardi. When first I saw the film, I suspected that its makers had originally intended that the lead role by filled by another blacklisted actor, Jack Gilford — it was not long after Gilford had been nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Save the Tiger — but that for billing reasons, they wound up with Woody Allen. Later, I read an interview with Ritt or Bernstein (I forget which) and the person said something that suggested Allen had been their first and only choice…but I'm only half-convinced.

Allen was fine in the film, of course, but I later heard a top studio executive cite this among films he felt were harmed, not helped, by the presence of a star whose very name defined the film wrongly. In this case, the theory was that people came expecting a Woody Allen film, while others saw the names of Allen and Mostel and expected a zany comedy. Whatever, he said, good movies sometimes flop because the advertising doesn't draw in the kind of people likely to enjoy the film and/or it causes audience to walk in the door expecting the wrong thing.

I thought The Front was a good movie which presented a good, non-hysterical view of that period in entertainment history when actors and writers were being ostracized either for their political beliefs or because someone had claimed they'd done something left-wing which they might or might not have actually done. I once discussed that era with Al and Helen Levitt, who were among the many blacklisted screenwriters, and they both made the point that even if you bought the premise that it was okay to pressure producers to not hire certain folks because of political activities, you should have objected to how inaccurate the process was. Without a trial or any avenue of appeal, people were "convicted" based on rumors, innuendos and things like someone who "thought" he'd seen them at a certain rally. There were cases of Joe Smith getting blacklisted because someone had confused him with John Smith. When radio personality John Henry Faulk brought his successful lawsuit against the company that compiled lists of those to not be hired, one of the key components in his victory was convincing the jury that the blacklisters routinely made whopping errors and never corrected them.

Obviously, the Levitts did not agree that someone could or should be fired because of their politics but they made the point that it was like someone who believed in the death penalty so strongly that they didn't care if the wrong people were being executed. They said this to me some time before DNA testing began proving that a shocking percentage of murder convictions are erroneous. I think of them every time I see some death penalty proponent who views executing the innocent as a minor, acceptable flaw in the system.

Al and Helen wrote for years through fronts or under the names of "Tom and Helen August." Though we hear stories of Walt Disney being a rabid anti-Communist, he routinely employed them and knew full well who he was hiring. The Writers Guild later "corrected" credits on The Monkey's Uncle and The Misadventures of Merlin Jones to put the Levitts' real names in place of their pen names. The couple, both of whom have passed on, felt they should have received credit on several others, including Old Yeller — and they still may, albeit posthumously. Anyway, they both liked The Front and felt it was an accurate portrayal, confirming what I had sensed. They especially liked the end credits which list not only the names of those who worked on the film but the date when some of them were blacklisted, thereby driving home the point that this really happened.

One blacklisted actor who wasn't in The Front was John Randolph, a veteran of stage and film who died February 24 at the age of 88. Randolph was blacklisted in 1955 and like many in that situation, fled to the stage. He got no work in TV or movies until 1966 when John Frankenheimer cast him in the film, Seconds. Thereafter, he turned up on screens rather steadily, though not in The Front. For some reason though, people think he was in that movie.

There have been two exhaustive biographies of Zero Mostel — Zero Mostel: A Biography by Jared Brown (out of print) and Zero Dances by Arthur Sainer. Both mention John Randolph being in The Front and both are wrong. Quite a few articles that were written about the film at the time of its release and since have listed Randolph among its cast members and they're all wrong. Maybe he filmed some scenes for it but he's not in the finished picture. Oddly enough, the same year he wasn't in this movie that he keeps being credited for, Randolph got into a public dispute with the producers of All the President's Men for not giving him credit on a movie he was in…or at least, his voice was. He provided the sound of Attorney General John Mitchell in the phone conversation with Dustin Hoffman and was quite distressed to find his name unlisted in the closing crawl. There's some sort of odd irony in there: A blacklisted actor being "named" in the wrong time and place.

Nicholas D. Kristof discusses C.E.O. salaries, especially with regard to Michael Eisner's compensation.

Waiting for a lunch date this afternoon, I couldn't help but overhear a spirited discussion about the Martha Stewart verdict. Some of those participating thought she was guilty and some thought she was innocent, and it struck me that none of these folks had arrived at their views by studying the merits of the case. The "Not Guilty" crowd merely felt that the world of stock trading is full of sleazy dealings and that if Ken Lay can escape indictment for something a zillion times worse, there's something selective about the prosecution of Ms. Stewart. The "Guilty" voters, meanwhile, seemed to just dislike her, period. And of course, if you don't like someone then they must be guilty of all accusations.

I'm always amazed at the depth of loathing some people have for folks they've never met and who've never done them or anyone any harm. Years ago at a party, I heard someone tick off a list of famous individuals who deserved to rot in Hades and the last two named were Timothy McVeigh and Kathie Lee Gifford…to which several around muttered, "Yeah! Kathie Lee!" I'm no particular fan of Ms. Gifford but…well, call me crazy but I think blowing up a building and killing 168 people might be a wee bit worse than being annoying on a talk show. I always got the feeling some people who abhorred Kathie Lee — and I feel this way again with Martha — disliked her because she reminded them of someone they didn't get along with in high school.

If I try to view today's verdict in some sort of positive light…well, I guess it's good to know that rich people can sometimes get convicted in our court system. Still, I'd feel a little better about this if I believed she'd actually broken a law and that it's a law that is applied equally to all.

And I guess I should point out that I don't know that she didn't break a genuine law. I don't know…and neither do a lot of people who are elated at the verdict. They only know how they feel about Martha Stewart, and maybe how they feel about someone "big" getting nailed to the wall.

Here's an article that asks the musical question, "Can Dennis Miller make audiences laugh from his new political vantage point?" Based on his current ratings, which are low even for CNBC, the answer is no.